It took a full year, from March 2009 until March 2010, for the office to recommend charging Sandusky because basic investigative steps were not taken, including searching Sandusky's home.

In March 2010, career prosecutor Jonelle Eshbach circulated a draft presentment that recommended filing multiple charges against Sandusky, based on statements by Victim 1 and other corroborating evidence. But senior leadership at OAG failed to act on that recommendation for five months despite repeated requests from Eshbach and the mother of Victim 1; Eshbach was informed in August 2010 that more victims were necessary for the case to proceed and they were declining to charge Sandusky.

Then, in the months that followed, little effort was made to find any more victims or charge Sandusky, and the case was at a complete standstill until a tip was received by the Centre County District Attorney in November 2010.

During press conference, Kane stated that two victims were abused in the Fall of 2009 while the investigation was ongoing.

The review found that the decision to take the case to the Grand Jury was supported by Eshbach and her superiors, and ultimately Attorney General Tom Corbett, and was within their prosecutorial discretion.

The report notes, however, that, "... for long stretches of time before the investigation ramped up in 2011, the resources of the Grand Jury were barely used at all. From the beginning of January 2010 through the end of October 2010, for example, the Grand Jury issued no subpoenas for testimony and only one subpoena for records." (See page 105.)

The review found that the decision to take the case to the Grand Jury was supported by Eshbach and her superiors, and ultimately Attorney General Tom Corbett, and was within their prosecutorial discretion.

The report notes, however, that, "... for long stretches of time before the investigation ramped up in 2011, the resources of the Grand Jury were barely used at all. From the beginning of January 2010 through the end of October 2010, for example, the Grand Jury issued no subpoenas for testimony and only one subpoena for records." (See page 105.)

I think Governor Corbett needs to be asked why this happened.

And he should be. And he'll give a stock political answer. AG Kane should be asked why the investigstion took so long and she'll give some stock political answer and nothing will change.

Note that the PA Police refused to cooperate during Kane's investigation. No explanation has been given as to why police officers usually assigned for narcotics investigations were assigned the case instead of those specializing in child sex abuse.

columbia wrote:It couldn't possibly have anything to do with the PSU alumni portion of the PA electorate. Not at all.Corbett is a coward.

I'm sure that had a big part of the reason Corbett waited until after the election, but have you noticed how the Second Mile has been largely left alone when it comes to further investigation? They worked with Sandusky more closely than PSU did after Sandusky's retirement. They should have known more than anyone else about his actions.

Bangs also references the Freeh report, saying it “was based on significant hearsay and was mostly ruled inadmissible (for the proceedings), (but) was admitted in part to show it had found Sandusky had received 71 separate payments from Penn State between 2000 and 2008.”

But the Freeh report was incorrect in that, according to the arbiter, who said Penn State only made six separate payments in those years to Sandusky for less than $5,000.

“The Freeh report had stood as a large part of the ground on which SERS forfeited (Sandusky’s) pension; the misleading aspect of this vitally important portion is significant,” Bangs wrote.

He continued later in a footnote: “The terrifically significant disparity between the finding in the Freeh report and the actual truth is disturbing. While the Freeh report found that Penn State had made 71 separate payments to (Sandusky) between 2000-2008, they were off by almost 85 percent, as the correct number was six separate payments.”

Bangs goes on to say that the error “calls into question the accuracy and veracity of the entire report.”

Bangs also references the Freeh report, saying it “was based on significant hearsay and was mostly ruled inadmissible (for the proceedings), (but) was admitted in part to show it had found Sandusky had received 71 separate payments from Penn State between 2000 and 2008.”

But the Freeh report was incorrect in that, according to the arbiter, who said Penn State only made six separate payments in those years to Sandusky for less than $5,000.

“The Freeh report had stood as a large part of the ground on which SERS forfeited (Sandusky’s) pension; the misleading aspect of this vitally important portion is significant,” Bangs wrote.

He continued later in a footnote: “The terrifically significant disparity between the finding in the Freeh report and the actual truth is disturbing. While the Freeh report found that Penn State had made 71 separate payments to (Sandusky) between 2000-2008, they were off by almost 85 percent, as the correct number was six separate payments.”

Bangs goes on to say that the error “calls into question the accuracy and veracity of the entire report.”

How does Freeh get the facts that wrong? Inflating 6 to be 71 for effect? Yikes.